Professor's sudden dismissal stuns students(Aryan Race Nation)

equinoxnews ^ | 04/01/05 | Tiffanie Johnson and Roberto Chavez

[Bonaparte]

"You've been through the article enough by now to know better than that."

You quote speculations by Pluss as proof that his political beliefs were publicized before he was dismissed? If so, then why did none of his students hear about it? Why were they so surprised by these revelations only after his dismissal? Even Pluss speculates only that some shadowy "watchdog group" may have alerted the university, ie. the administration.

There is no evidence presented in the article that Pluss injected his personal politics into his classroom teaching.

[familyop]

You wrote:
"You quote speculations by Pluss as proof that his political beliefs were publicized before he was dismissed?"

...because Pluss admitted in his speculation that he had already publicized his Nazism. Now you've read it several times. Have you no shame?

From the article:
"The professor speculated that he was dismissed because of his work with the National Socialist Movement on the internet, adding that the university "followed the typical Jewish, lawyerly, Hebrew line." He suggested that a "watchdog group" may have alerted FDU about his activities beyond the classroom."

[Bonaparte]

"...because Pluss admitted in his speculation that he had already publicized his Nazism."

I've read his comments three times carefully. He said nothing about "publicizing" his viewpoints.

No less than 7 of his students are quoted in the article as saying they had no hint of any racism in him, variously referring to him as a "liberal," "anti-racist," and the like. Even the instructor who replaced him, Michelle Hartman, reports in the article that these students were shocked at the revelations following his dismissal.

From Webster's: publicize: To bring to the attention of the public: To advertise.

Where in the article does Pluss say that he sought to bring his views to the attention of the public, to advertise them, to make them generally known before his dismissal? Where?

[familyop]

But I really don't care how university administrations find out about a preference for neo-Nazism/communism in an instructor, as long as the evidence/testimony is good. I want them out of there. A tendency toward lying about history is a prerequisite for being a national socialist or any kind of socialist. And that tendency in history enthusiasts who are neo-Nazis/communists is to incorporate national socialism into history revisionism very incrementally.

Having a neo-Nazi as a history professor is like having a homosexual proctologist.

Such people as history instructors are dangerous to our nation's security and Constitution. And being a non-union conservative, I want them out of jobs as history instructors. To give them a "right" to stay in such a position regardless of their intents on history is to institute a part of national socialism--control of businesses. And no school should be getting federal funding other than schools for training military/security personnel, IMO. Nationalized schools invite the policy of retaining history instructors who want despots as leaders.

[familyop]

You wrote:
"I've read his comments three times carefully. He said nothing about "publicizing" his viewpoints."

But from the article again:
"The professor speculated that he was dismissed because of his work with the National Socialist Movement on the internet, adding that the university "followed the typical Jewish, lawyerly, Hebrew line." He suggested that a "watchdog group" may have alerted FDU about his activities beyond the classroom."

You understand those words. Work with a movement on the Internet is "publicizing." The Internet is not private, and obviously, according to what Pluss said (above), someone spotted his work on the Internet.

[Bonaparte]

"A tendency toward lying about history is a prerequisite for being a national socialist...'

Cite one lie Pluss told to his students. The ones interviewed, seven of them, all said he was a terrific instructor, that he did his job and did it well. Where is your evidence that he lied to them (other than your own presupposition)?

"And that tendency in history enthusiasts who are neo-Nazis/communists is to incorporate national socialism into history revisionism very incrementally."

Again, where is your evidence that Pluss was indoctrinating his students? They say he was not doing this. And unlike you, they were there. Not one student was quoted in the article as saying anything else.

"I want them out of there."

Yes, I understand that. But as long as they do the job competently and professionally and do nothing to undermine their students' morals or loyalty to America, they are playing by the rules. Everything in the article supports the conclusion that Pluss played by the rules. Even the university administration knew this. That's why they used the pretext of absenteeism to fire him.

[Cronos]

The point was not that they were black. The point was that they were not communists. That was the issue that was raised and the one I was addressing.

Yup, they could have become communist and had a chance. For a KKK, a black is iredeemable. THAT is the difference. Whatever way you want to whitewash it, being a Nazi is despicable and the guy should be thrown out.

[bad company]

The guy was apparantly an excellent professor quite capable of separating his private views from required course material and of behaving decently towards all. What more can you ask?

That he not subscribe to a doctrine that entails broad generalizations evidenced only by a persons heritage. Bigotry is evidence of sloppy thinking at best, stupidity at worst. Neither quality is admirable for a college professor.

[Cronos]

Exactly -- the Nazional Socialists are NOT conservatives.

[Bonaparte]

I will allow that Pluss was indiscrete by posting those comments under his name at that website. It was foolish and it tripped him up. However, as I've stated repeatedly, he did nothing to promote those views with his students.

Had he been a communist, he could have been as sloppy as he wanted to be. The university wouldn't have cared and neither would most of the students. His unremedied absences would have been overlooked. Don't believe me? Then tell me when you last heard of a communist being dismissed from a university.

[familyop]

BTW, our arguments in discussions like these are very public, for example. If they are erased, machines at quite a few locations have already copied them. If IPs are blocked from a site, one can find hundreds or thousands of free and commercial proxies from a single web page without even bothering to rent another cheap IP. There's nothing really private that's displayed on the Internet.

[familyop]

"Then tell me when you last heard of a communist being dismissed from a university." ...Daly. She wasn't the last, but she was one of the more notorious feminists who was fired. And I did my little part.

[Bonaparte]

True. But if you wanted to publicize your views, ie. to advertise them, to make them generally known -- you would not restrict yourself to casual commentary in your own little amen corner. You would actively broadcast them to everybody you could reach.

Afterall, your claim seems to be that Pluss was seeking to proselytize others in his cherished doctrines of white supremacy and neo-nazism. How would he do that if he only preached to the choir?

[familyop]

"Then tell me when you last heard of a communist being dismissed from a university."

...reformat for you here.

...Daly. She wasn't the last, but she was one of the more notorious feminists who was fired. And I did my little part.

[familyop]

There was also Nancy Cantor, in Illinois, but that one wasn't as well publicized in other parts of the country.

[Bonaparte]

Mary Daly? You mean the feminist "theologian" from Boston? When was it established that she's a communist? This is news to me.

[familyop]

Mary Daly rejected all hierarchical structures. That's about as Marxist as a person can be.

And it's common knowledge that feminism cannot survive without socialism. Our US bureaucracy is rife with programs to entice women to divorce, separate, stay single and the like. All feminists are socialists whether they admit it or not. Communism also rises with the help of feminism, until such useful idiot (feminism) is no longer needed and is discarded.

"Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society" (Frederick Engels, "Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State").

Mao's Little Red Book on Women
http://www.paulnoll.com/China/Mao/Mao-31-Women.html

Some of Lenin's words on women
http://www.marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/nov/06.htm

The following is from the "Manifesto of the Communist Party" (Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Fredrick Engels)
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

"The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women."

He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.

For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial."

“Everyone who knows anything of history also knows that great social revolutions are impossible without the feminine ferment. Social progress may be measured precisely by the social position of the fair sex (plain ones included)” (Karl Marx Letter to Ludwig Kugelmann, MECW, Volume 43, p. 184, http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1868/letters/68_12_12.htm)

But we bear in mind that feminism is obviously much like Nazism.

[familyop]

Charles Fourier is known among feminists who are out of the closet with their Marxism (and many who aren't) as the founder of feminism. His excuse was that there weren't enough chicks on the loose and also that real families would mess up his commune model.

Feminism is one of the things that Nazis and communists have in common.

[Bonaparte]

Ok, I agree that Daly wants some of the same things communists want. (BTW, communist societies are extremely hierarchical and bureacratic.) But every liberal and almost every democrat in America also wants some of the same things communists want. There are even a good many Republicans who fall into this category.

Does that make them communists themselves?

And should we have them all dismissed from their positions at public universities?

[nathanbedford]

You assume that your points are "right" , and that your provenance does not matter.

You have it backward

If Göebbels avers that the sun rises in the east and Mother Theresa asserted that it rises in the west, who has the better provenance but who has the better point?

So, I argue that it is not I but those who argue ad hominen who are the ones who have it backward. It is not that I assume my points are right but they assume they cannot be right and so, by extension, should not be heard.

This is a very dangerous path especially in a university setting which above anywhere should be an arena for the aggressive clash of ideas. A path which leads ultimately to Dachau. I live in Germany part of the year and I witness their course of legislating PC. So they outlaw the skin heads. Then the Holocaust deniers. Then they take on the Scientologists. Whose next? They have made what was sacred in 1939 profane and what was profane, sacred. So you may not sell the swastika on e-bay but you can buy the hammer and sickle. You may no longer denigrate Jews or discriminate against homosexuals but Scientologists are labeled a cult and discriminated against by the government and its agent, the tax man. My point is that neither rightness of vision nor liberty to speak and think should be dependent on the PC flavor of the season.

Therefore, I have not called for the firing of Ward Churchill because he is a loathsome America hater even though he intruded his views into the classroom. But I say he should be fired for fraud in his provenance and for plagiarism. This Nazi, by this account, has not intruded his obnoxious views into the classroom but is receiving the punishment the faculty and administration in Colorado are loathe to administer to Churchill for his statusas a Nazi; not for what he does but for what he thinks ( This, of course, unless you give credence to the official university reason, unexcused absences. I do not give this much credence because of the manner of the firing, the absence of a hearing etc. It may well be that the university wants to set no precedent which will operate against the left, or, perhaps the university knows that it is departing from its own tradition established is cases benefiting the left- a case study validating my whole point about PC,if true.)

In the final analysis, this is Jim Robinson's forum to do with what he will. So far, he has used good judgment in controlling the forum and has prevented it from being stolen away by racist ideologues. But there is a danger on the other side which arises out of a vigilante caste determined to enforce their own version of conservatism on all of us. They do not shrink from distortion and calumny and even intimidation and false allegations of racism or antisemitism to dominate these threads. At the end of the day we conservatives must answer publicly whether our conservatism is strong enough and enlightened enough to survive in the marketplace of ideas without the need of life support which comes at a terrible price which is always exacted by the thought police.